New beta for OA 71952

[MavericK96 0]

Do you see any performance loss having the negative LOD bias allowed?

[mr.g-c 6]

After some time testing the betas, performance with the new beta is significantly worse (as it also is with ArmA 2 build 1.07.71750) due to the stuttering introduced with the changes to make the .exe LAA.

As mentioned already by others this is not manifested as low FPS, but noticeable stuttering while moving or looking around.

Original OA release is perfect, in fact a surprising improvement over ArmA 2; while 71900 and 71952 are notably worse.

Can we have an option to revert to the memory handling code for people not using 7 x86-64?

Recoil is good - can we please have realistic weapon sway to add to the mix ;)

Protegimus

Very true!

But its definitely not LAA, as i've disabled that in the EXE again and tried it...

Its the changes they made in the LOD system - and they DID have made changes in the LOD-system with 2-3 beta just before 1.07, no matter what Suma said!.

See my findings here (I'm not yet a OA user and i will refuse to buy it, if performance stays this horrible!):

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11456#change-57360

[Kubicide 0]

Patch is working really well - much, much better than 71900 and the release exe. Multiplayer games are more fluid with far less stutter and desync issues. Crossfire is now making a major difference whereas it didn't help in the 71900 and release 1.52 version.

System specs below...

Keep it up BIS! This beta makes OA feel like Arma2 prior to 1.7!

[ck911 10]

I have the same error messages as above.

Regarding the recoil, I think the betas have really taken dire straits with the recoil. It's simply annoying to drag mouse downwards after each shot and makes shooting rapid semi-automatic fire impossible.

In real life the recoil is easier to manage than with mouse. It's not realistic, it's just plain annoying and probably prevents me testing more betas.

Moreover, the AI is happy to blast away without any hinderance from recoil.

If there's going to be deviation of the gun after each shot make it more moderate and more manageable. If it's not properly implemented I suggest going back to original OA/ArmA 2 recoíls which I find much more satisfying. Third option is to add menu option for recoil adjustement so those craving for "hard-core" recoils can have those 45 degree upward jumps on their 556x45 assault rifles :P

^^^^^^ Me the same: Recoil (in this way) is annoying! That´s why i went back to plain 1.52. Hopefully this never will be put into a final release. :mad:

[MavericK96 0]

Moreover, the AI is happy to blast away without any hinderance from recoil.

Yeah, I noticed this as well, and this is a really big problem if BIS is going to keep the current recoil model.

[shataan 1]

No performance loss that I can percieve.

[sbsmac 0]

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11689 and

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11688

Still affect 71952. In addition I've noticed annoying inconsistencies in the shadow rendering - will try to get a video of this.

[sethos 2]

I've seen a ton of shadow issues, I can sit inside a house with shadows and when I turn my back on the wall there's complete sunlight inside. I see massive anomalies on the road, like square shaped shadows out of place and triangular shadows that doesn't fit with anything.

[MavericK96 0]

I've seen a ton of shadow issues, I can sit inside a house with shadows and when I turn my back on the wall there's complete sunlight inside. I see massive anomalies on the road, like square shaped shadows out of place and triangular shadows that doesn't fit with anything.

I actually noticed this as well...Went up into the radio tower in Utes near the landing strip and the shadows would flash on and off inside the building. Pretty strange.

[frederf 0]

So how did the recoil model change from 71900 since the old recoil discussion thread was closed?

[PuFu 4591]

recoil was toned down a bit, yes

[metalcraze 290]

I actually noticed this as well...Went up into the radio tower in Utes near the landing strip and the shadows would flash on and off inside the building. Pretty strange.

That's because the engine removes the objects that are not in a viewport to save system resources and as a result it can't draw a shadow from something that doesn't exist anymore (like a wall or a roof). It's a very common "technique". Although I'd rather wished it did that only to objects 5 or higher meters away (the engine probably doesn't take the distance into account when "culling") as it won't affect FPS in any way

So how did the recoil model change from 71900 since the old recoil discussion thread was closed?

It's ok now, but a little bit weak for my taste. You'll notice that your aim got misplaced only after some 5-7 shots.

Edited July 10, 2010 by metalcraze

[MavericK96 0]

It's ok now, but a little bit weak for my taste. You'll notice that your aim got misplaced only after some 5-7 shots.

Disagree. I think it still needs to be toned down for crouching, possibly a bit for standing. It's impossible to put more than 1 shot in rapid succession into a target, say, 150m away.

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

I haven't tried the Beta patches, has OA performance been updated yet?

[MavericK96 0]

I haven't tried the Beta patches, has OA performance been updated yet?

For some, yes. Some also say no. You'd just have to try them for yourself.

[That guy 10]

can some one post a vid for the newest recoil model?

[h - 169]

Been playing the campaign with this beta and absolutely no stability issues whatsoever.

I do have to say that I also suffer from those stutters, it is exactly what vanilla A2 suffered up to 1.05 and prior to the beta patches nearing 1.07 (I guess when the exThreads & friends stuff came about)

But I don't experience any stutters when on foot, only when flying and with some faster land vehicles.

Other than that I have not experienced any gain or loss of perfromance, the stutters were there prior to these beta patches.

The new recoil is way better than the original or the one in 79100.

There are some graphical issues that are a bit annoying because they distract you a bit. All of these can be seen by running the benchmark mission.

- On Object Detail set to Normal (and maybe even on High) trees that are not very close to the camera "pulsate" LODs, I guess they don't really know which LOD to use. Very High detail setting seems not to suffer from this much.

- Using Shadow Detail High or Very High (haven't tried Normal) shadows flicker and "grow" like they would be LOD popping but I guess that's because the objects are about come to view start to "LOD up"..

Haven't tested earlier versions yet, but at least with this patch after you load a saved game the MG muzzleflashes on vehicles are visible until you fire once and it disappears. Noticed this playing the "Something Something Sandstorm" mission (the campaign mission where you command the tanks/etc with HC).

One thing that was a tad peculiar was that when I opened the Arma2OA.cfg the 3D_Performance was something like -479XXX whereas in A2 it is 93750. As in it was in negative hundreds of thousands instead of positive tens of thousands. Then again changing it to the A2 value did nothing.

Also the GPU_MaxFramesAhead was set to 1000. Thankfully my system only allowed it get detected up to 3 (now set to 1 like I have it in A2 cfg) :p

Specs:

Win7 Ultimate 64bit

Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz

4Gb RAM

4890 1Gb OC'd / CAT 10.5

Abit IP35 Pro

Game runs from Sata 3gb/s RAID 10

[-TwK-Danny 0]

You should try video memory at Very High rather than Default.

Try if yourself, run the benchmark supplied with ArmA II OA, i constantly get ~3-4 fps more with video memory on Very High rather than Default.

Never understood why since Default is supposed to be for cards with more than 512mb..

Edited July 10, 2010 by [TwK]Danny

[mrcash2009 0]

True I always use textures normal & vid mem very high and that stopped a lot of stuttering for me way back in A2 in the main building areas, and never changed it since.

---------- Post added at 10:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 AM ----------

So, in addition how come people arent getting this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1677498&postcount=69

I noticed a few people mentioning the No entry 'bin\config.bin/CfgVehicles/All artilleryTarget.' message on startup.

Has anyone got any more input? I cant work the new beta because of it yet other have it working, are we to assume its combined versions having issues and OA standalone is ok? Can someone who doesn't have any such messages and combined AO with A2 please post the contents of their shortcut to just check, thanks.

[h - 169]

Right, thnx, using Very High vid mem did indeed help a little with the stutters (not completely gone), and seemed to give a few FPS more in the benchmark. :)

[mr.g-c 6]

Also the GPU_MaxFramesAhead was set to 1000. Thankfully my system only allowed it get detected up to 3 (now set to 1 like I have it in A2 cfg) :p

I have the same issue since 2-3 betas before 1.07 in Arma2.

See here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1678110#post1678110

and here: http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11456#note-23

So you also changed "nothing" in your system, just like me and yet it did auto-set this value to "1000" like in my case??? :D

BIS i hope you listen.....

[Dwarden 1124]

1000 was always default value

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/arma2.cfg

it will then use the driver enforced value which is most of time 3

you can verify that by checking GPU_DetectedFramesAhead

Edited July 10, 2010 by Dwarden

[mr.g-c 6]

1000 is default value

it will then use the driver enforced value which is most of time 3

But you can see clearly that this is still bad as it introduces some sort of low-FPS-feeling despite the FPS are good and furthermore it introduces heavy mouse-lag.

[rstratton 0]

im getting tons of errors like

this with newest oa beta

#

Warning Message: No entry 'bin\config.bin/CfgVehicles/All.artilleryTarget'.

see pastebin link for full list

[Wolfstriked 11]

My PC states it needs this big a page file?

Recommended:12285mb

When I try to set my 4gig ramdrive to set the pagefile automatically it says that there is not enough room.Why is it trying for such a huge pagefile?